tutter_fan
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2003
- Messages
- 1,855
- Reaction score
- 363
It'd be funny if was involved in a few episodes.
That actually WOULD be funny.It'd be funny if was involved in a few episodes.
Somehow I dont think that would work.I wish that the revival of "Muppet Babies" will give another chance to it's spinoff show "Little Muppet Monsters". https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkuUe1iMrUXZNdzpdRowKD7n7xk_5egjd
I wonder if it's Disney or the JHC that owns those characters.I wish that the revival of "Muppet Babies" will give another chance to it's spinoff show "Little Muppet Monsters". https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkuUe1iMrUXZNdzpdRowKD7n7xk_5egjd
It would be Disney, as Disney now own Marvel that produced it and also Disney bought "Muppetisms" and they are Muppet Monsters.I wonder if it's Disney or the JHC that owns those characters.
I liked how they combined puppetry and animation.Somehow I dont think that would work.
I guess people could say the same thing about Rugrats, when you have slightly older kids like Chuckie and Angelica...I've never understood why they're called "Babies" when they're clearly old enough to walk around and speak coherently. Some of them are in diapers, sure, but they seem to be old enough to not need them in a little bit. I dunno. Muppet Babies loses all its logic if you think hard enough about it. Best not to dwell too hard on it. I doubt that the Muppet characters were in a year's age difference back then. I mean, Baby Kermit already had a nephew at let's just say age 3. By that logic, sure, nephew by the definition, but they'd be roughly the same age, not a 20 something-40 year something old character with a 6 year old.
Just...when it comes to Muppet Babies don't think too much about it. You don't want to go down the rabbit hole and realize how negligent Nanny is for leaving the room that many times an episode instead of watching them.